What they're not telling you about the election.

The day of blood and elections has passed, and the blaring trumpets of corporate media hailing it as a successful show of "democracy" have subsided
to a dull roar.

After a day which left 50 people dead in Iraq, both civilians and soldiers, the death toll was hailed as a figure that was "lower than expected."
Thusacceptable, by Bush Administration/corporate media standards. After all, only of them was an American, the rest were Iraqis civilians and British
soldiers.

The gamble of using the polling day in Iraq to justify the ongoing failed occupation of Iraq has apparently paid off, if you watch only mainstream
media.

"Higher than expected turnout," US mainstream television media blared, some citing a figure of 72%, others 60%.

What they didn't tell you was that this figure was provided by Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI)
before the polls had even closed.

When asked about the accuracy of the estimate of voter turnout during a press conference, Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying that a closer
estimate was lower than his initial estimate and would be more like 60% of registered voters.

The IECI spokesman said his previous figure of 72% was "only guessing" and "was just an estimate," which was based on "very rough, word-of mouth
estimates gathered informally from the field. It will take some time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout."

Referencing both figures, Ayar then added, "Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over ... It's too soon
to say that those were the official numbers."

But this isn't the most important misrepresentation the mainstream media committed.

What they also didn't tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an
ongoing US occupation of their country.

In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National
Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation.

And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later.

This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a different light now, doesn't it?

But then, most folks in the US watching CNN, FOX, or any of the major networks won't see it that way. Instead, they will hear what Mr. Bush said,
"The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," and take it as fact because most of the major media outlets aren't
scratching beneath film clips of joyous Iraqi voters over here in the land of daily chaos and violence, no jobs, no electricity, little running water
and no gasoline (for the Iraqis anyhow).

And Bush is portrayed by the media as the bringer of democracy to Iraq by the simple fact that this so-called election took place, botched as it may
have been. Appearances suggest that the majority Shia in Iraq now finally get their proportional representation in a "government." Looks good on
paper.

But as you continue reading, the seemingly altruistic reasons for this election as portrayed by the Bush Administration and trumpeted by most
mainstream media are anything but.

And Iraqis who voted are hearing other trumpets that are blaring an end to the occupation.

Now the question remains, what happens when the National Assembly is formed and over 100,000 US soldiers remain on the ground in Iraq with the Bush
Administration continuing in its refusal to provide a timetable for their removal?

What happens when Iraqis see that while there are already four permanent US military bases in their country, rather than beginning to disassemble
them, more bases are being constructed, as they are, by Cheney's old company Halliburton, right now?

Antonia Juhasz, a /Foreign Policy in Focus/ scholar, authored a piece just before the "election" that sheds light on a topic that has lost attention
amidst the recent fanfare concerning the polls in Iraq.

Oil.

I think it's worth including much of her story here, as it fits well with today's topic of things most folks aren't being told by the bringers of
democracy to the heart of the Middle East.

On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open Iraq's national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi explained: "So I think
this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies."

In other words, Mahdi is proposing to privatize Iraq's oil and put it into American corporate hands.
According to the finance minister, foreigners would gain access both to "downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment. This means
foreigners can sell Iraqi oil and own it under the ground - the very thing for which many argue the U.S. went to war in the first place.

As Vice President Dick Cheney's Defense Policy Guidance report explained back in 1992, "Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside
power in the [Middle East] region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

While few in the American media other than Emad Mckay of Inter Press Service reported on - or even attended - Mahdi's press conference, the
announcement was made with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at Mahdi's side. It was intended to send a message - but to whom?
It turns out that Abdel Mahdi is running in the Jan. 30 elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading
Shiite political party. While announcing the selling-off of the resource which provides 95 percent of all Iraqi revenue may not garner Mahdi many
Iraqi votes, but it will unquestionably win him tremendous support from the U.S. government and U.S. corporations.

Mahdi's SCIR is far and away the front-runner in the upcoming elections, particularly as it becomes increasingly less possible for Sunnis to vote
because the regions where they live are spiraling into deadly chaos. If Bush were to suggest to Iraq's Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that
elections should be called off, Mahdi and the SCIR's ultimate chances of victory will likely decline./

I'll add that the list of political parties Mahdi's SCIR belongs to, The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), includes the Iraqi National Council, which is
led by an old friend of the Bush Administration who provided the faulty information they needed to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, none other
than Ahmed Chalabi.

It should also be noted that interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi also fed the Bush Administration cooked information used to justify the invasion, but
he heads a different Shia list which will most likely be getting nearly as many votes as the UIA list.

And The UIA has the blessing of Iranian born revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani issued a fatwa which instructed his huge
number of followers to vote in the election, or they would risk going to hell.

Thus, one might argue that the Bush administration has made a deal with the SCIR: Iraq's oil for guaranteed political power. The Americans are able
to put forward such a bargain because Bush still holds the strings in Iraq.

Regardless of what happens in the elections, for at least the next year during which the newly elected National Assembly writes a constitution and
Iraqis vote for a new government, the Bush administration is going to control the largest pot of money available in Iraq (the $24 billion in U.S.
taxpayer money allocated for the reconstruction), the largest military and the rules governing Iraq's economy. Both the money and the rules will, in
turn, be overseen by U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals who sit in every Iraqi ministry with five-year terms and sweeping authority over
contracts and regulations. However, the one thing which the administration has not been unable to confer upon itself is guaranteed access to Iraqi oil
- that is, until now.

And there is so much more they are not telling you. Just like the Iraqis who voted, believing they did so to bring an end to the occupation of their
country.

(c)2004, 2005 Dahr Jamail.
All images and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's Dispatches on the web, you
need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the DahrJamailIraq.com website. Any other use of images and text including, but not
limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free to forward Dahr's
dispatches via email.

Sorry, LeftBehind, but your figure is trash and your reading of the situation is a little ordinary.

"About 66 percent of Iraqi expatriates who were registered to vote -- 186,619 -- cast ballots in the first two days of their three-day voting period,
the United Nations' Iraq out-of-country voting program said Sunday. More than 280,000 expatriates registered for the election."

The number of expats voting early is a trivial number relative to the voter turnout in Iraq, a figure that is unknown - as it says in plain English in
the CNN article that you linked - and that will be subject to more controversy.

The interim Iraqi president is not a product of the election, and his remarks make Jamail's analysis more pertinent still.

Perhaps it is difficult to stay in touch with Iraq, so far far away, if misinterpretation of spin and mass media are the only sources.

This all lends credence to the claims back in 2003 that this was all about providing Israel with it's own energy source by rebuilding the long
defunct pipeline from Mosul to Haifa. This plan was dependent on the new Iraqi government that was in place after the war. It was thought that a
Shiite majority would not be amenable to this plan--perhaps this is no longer the case...

US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel is not particularly surprising, since it would get the Americans off a hook they would rather not be on.
Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) then-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated an agreement with Israel that guaranteed to meet
all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the US to construct and
stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some $ 3 bn in 2002 dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from
restrictions on oil exports from the US.

Moreover, the Americans agreed to divert oil from their home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised
oil in their own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or unavailable to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially
massive financial commitment to Israel, over and above the $ 91 bn in identifiable budgeted aid the US had provided for Israel since 1949, excluding $
10 bn as loan guarantees it has drawn to date.

The Americans have another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean that would lessen US
dependence on Gulf oil supplies. With the renewed post-9/11 emphasis on energy security in Washington, direct access to the world's second largest
oil reserves (with the possibility these can be immensely expanded through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective.
Earlier efforts by Israel to plug into Iraq's oil have all foundered. In the mid-1980s the Americans and Israelis were involved in talks to develop a
pipeline from Iraq across Jordan to Aqaba, a stone's throw from Eilat. Iraq, then considered aUS ally, was at that time locked in a war with Iran in
which Tehran's ally Syria had cut off the flow of Iraqi oil across its territory to the Mediterranean.
Among the participants was one Donald Rumsfeld, then an adviser to Ronald Reagan, and the American Bechtel Corporation headed by future secretary of
state James Baker III. Bechtel is expected to secure major reconstruction projects in the new Iraq.

Behind the scenes, the Americans are seriously pushing Iraqi recognition of Israel and the pipeline with the INC. But Washington's game plan could
well be stymied by Iraq's Shiite majority, which seeks to dominate the new government and which is increasingly hostile to the US and its Iraqi
surrogates like the INC, including Chalabi, even though he's a Shiite himself. Tehran's reported clandestine efforts to encourage leading Shiite
clerics to dominate the new Iraq are likely to further spoil US efforts to promote Israel's interests.

Chalabi, who returned to Iraq in April after four decades in exile,is understood to have discussed recognition of Israel if he and the INC secure
power. He has forged strong ties with the White House and the Pentagon in recent years. But there are many in the State Department and the Central
Intelligence Agency who do not believe his largely exile organisation has enough popular support inside Iraq.

Chalabi has also built a strong following in the American Jewish community. "There's no track record of anyone else in Iraqi leadership having a
relationship with the Jewish community," according to Tom Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
"Because Saddam was so anti-Israel, the hope is that all of Saddam's policies will be revisited, including his relationship with Israel and the
United States," Neumann said. "There's no reason for the Iraqi people to have a problem with Israel."

Just going to make one comment then slip away from this thread. 44 people were killed on the day of elections in the entire country. You have one of
two options with this. Either you have to admit that that figure is really low if the war in Iraq is going as poorly as many of you claim, or two, it
is only about 5% of the country which is still unsecure. You can't have it both ways.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.